Neuroscience is intellectually the broadest and most taxing field in life sciences, and technologically it is the most challenging.

I hadn't realized until recently that the United States is in the grip of a mania.

It used to be that the record of scientific work was complete when it was all published in journals.

How do scientists communicate, with one another and with the public?

Whatever the entertainment and artistic merits of the movie "The Constant Gardener," released at the end of last month, the pharmaceutical industry could do without it.

So says a leading character in the just-released movie ?The Constant Gardener.? Having seen the film, I can tell you that he means big pharmaceutical companies, not very large pills. The message that pharma is evil is drilled home repeatedly, like a new type of cramming video for some high school social sciences exam. It?s even the focal point of the television trailer. But that?s not what I took from the movie at all. I enjoyed The Constant Gardener as a piece of escapism. It is centered

In 1986, the year in which the automated DNA sequencer was invented, GenBank held a scant 9.6 million bases.

The life sciences have been slow to embrace blogging.

Who would have thought that a ragtag group of entertainers could have an impact on the biggest social and political questions of the day?

A clutch of research misconduct stories has hit the news in recent weeks.

As a society we are making huge investments, both intellectual and financial, in the life sciences.

In a recent essay bemoaning the loss of psychology in favor of what he considers an overly biologically deterministic psychiatry, Richard C. Morias, a senior editor at Forbes, confesses a "vague suspicion" that "21st century America is ... suffering from an unhealthy obsession with science and technology."1 Certainly, it's difficult to escape from coverage of these issues. Morias' is an intriguing and provocative thesis, but sadly, his claimed obsession is just a loud idle burbling rather than a